back to article Australia mulls dumping the .com from .com.au – so you can bake URLs like chocolate.gate.au

Australia may ditch the .com in .com.au and offer citizens straight .au domain names following increased competition from the explosion of dot-word addresses. A discussion paper [PDF] published by the .AU Domain Administration (AuDA) puts forward the case for making the aforementioned change. It notes that while it has …

  1. Ole Juul

    Shop by URL

    Am I the only one who, if looking for flowers, would not start typing out a URL in the hopes of finding what I want?

    1. Martin Budden

      Re: Shop by URL

      If I'm looking for flowers I go out in my backyard. YMMV.

      1. boba1l0s2k9
        Devil

        Re: Shop by URL

        Your back yard seems like a good choice. What's your address?

  2. Bubba Von Braun

    Chris must need more cigars

    AuDA supply of Cuban's must be running low.. Just a sad money grab, as those with existing .com.au will of course register .au's so AuDA gets the growth they want.

    Address bar search queries have obsoleted guessable addresses..

    1. Gray Ham
      Pint

      Re: Chris must need more cigars

      It may be a money grab, but if they have to have an Australian presence to register a name, are you going to object to:

      augustiner.br.au

      lowen.br.au

      hof.br.au

      etc ... ?

      1. veti Silver badge

        Re: Chris must need more cigars

        Presumably some Australian off-license chain would register 'br.au', and then how they choose to sell the sub-brands is up to them.

        At least, subject to the inevitable trademark suits from their rightful owners, obviously.

        1. Stoneshop Silver badge
          Pint

          Re: Chris must need more cigars

          ziemlich.schl.au

  3. Tac Eht Xilef

    Sooo...

    I take it MelbourneIT's profits are down the shitter?

    Good. DIAF.

  4. Jamie Jones Silver badge

    No need to copy

    Hey, Oz!

    Just because the rest of the world is stupidly flattening the DNS hierarchy for no good reason, doesn't mean you should be as dumb too!

    Jamie (old enough to remember *.oz.au)

  5. Phuq Witt

    Dot Oz?

    I wonder why they wouldn't just go for a simple .OZ as their TLD? It's right up there with US, UK and NZ, as regards "instant brand recognition", whereas .AU looks [to me anyway] like it might be the TLD for Austria.

    I presume countries do have some say in what their 'official' 2- or 3-letter abbreviation is?

    1. Edward Phillips

      Re: Dot Oz?

      No they don't. It's drawn from an ISO list (ISO 3166-1 alpha 2, for the pedants out there). One or two early adopters cheated slightly (.uk) but otherwise it's fixed.

      1. Anonymous IV

        Re: Dot Oz?

        Soon be time to look up whether .en, .sc, .wa and .ni are still available for use...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Dot Oz?

          Sorry, Scotland have already gone with .scot, earlier this year.

        2. Vic

          Re: Dot Oz?

          Soon be time to look up whether .en, .sc, .wa and .ni are still available for use...

          There will be a bunfight for knights.who.say.ni ...

          Vic.

    2. Christoph Silver badge

      Re: Dot Oz?

      That was what they used originally. It got changed over years back to the standard ISO value - I think partly because businesses were starting to use the net and winged that .oz wasn't businesslike.

    3. James Ashton

      Re: Dot Oz?

      Long ago, like in the 80s, there was ".oz" for Australia but it didn't survive the move to use the international standard for two-letter country codes so we changed, with a brief transition via ".oz.au". Only ".uk" seems to have managed to break the rules in that respect.

  6. Cuddles Silver badge

    Wait, the UK moved everything from .co.uk to just .uk? When did this happen, and why am I reading about it at theregister.co.uk?

    1. BoldMan

      Nothing "moved", they just allowed people to buy x.uk as well as x.co.uk

      1. Vic

        they just allowed people to buy x.uk as well as x.co.uk

        Does anyone know the formal rules for that?

        I have a .org.uk. The .uk is still unregistered, and the .co.uk is registered to a domain squatter. And I want to find out when I can go for the .uk without flagging that up to a squatter with priority rights...

        Vic.

  7. mathew42

    Hierarchy adds value

    I think the hierarchy adds value, although possibly not as much as in the past. If I visit a site and the URL is *.gov.au, then there is a stronger change it is a website run by an Australian Federal government department. If it is *.wa.gov.au then I can assume it is a website from the Western Australian State government department. If the website ends is *.edu.au, then it is an educational institution of varying quality.

    The distinction between .com.au, .net.au, .org.au & .asn.au is more open to interpretation and the correct place for an entity can change over time.

  8. Charlie Clark Silver badge

    Flawed logic

    The reason for the proposed change is because of suspected competition from things like .shit? Simple economics suggest it won't work, except for forcing existing .com.au users to buy an additional domain.

    I've always like the two-tier, taxonomic approach as it removes ambiguity. National domain registries should essentially be administering a common resource, charging only administrative costs only. This lowers overall costs and increases trust. Oh, well.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019